Talk:Queenstown suppressed indecency case

Please don't name the guy
If you know or think you know the alleged perpetrator, please don't add his name to the article just yet, there are several matters to consider:
 * Don't name him in the article
 * don't name him here in this Talk page
 * whether the blog by Derryn Hinch fails the blogs are largely not acceptable test ("largely not acceptable" means "sometimes acceptable" obviously)
 * whether Hinch's claim is cited sufficiently in the media to make those citations themselves render the original blog citable
 * whether the fact that the man was found guilty (and indeed pleaded so himself) is sufficient, given that no conviction was entered

We also need to balance all that with Wikipedia is not censored. Generally, if something is true, it ought to be here. In good faith, Nankai (talk) 09:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hinch is an activist and controversialist with criminal convictions for his activism. He is far from a scientist or scholar writing a scholarly blog, which is the kind of blog that might be considered a reliable source. Nurg (talk) 10:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's OK to link from there to Hinch's blog as a reference. I don't think it's OK even to name Hinch in the article, so I won't do so. His claim in his blog is not direct;y pointed to by any main stream media. I do think we should continue to discuss Hinch here on this talk page.Nankai (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Blogs are OK to source the opinion of the blogger, not for statements of fact, so the blog is not acceptable as a source.
 * I am not a lawyer, especially not in international law, but I know enough to be confident when I say: it's not as simple as saying that Wikipedias servers are in Florida so the order doesn't apply. Depending on how the order is written, and how the New Zealand courts look on jurisdiction, individual editors or the Wikimedia Foundation might get in trouble for posting the name or identifying facts. Jurisdiction varies by country and by area of law, but courts in country X might e.g. have jurisdiction over citizens of X no matter where the offense is committed, over offenses committed against citizens of X or on websites directed at residents of country X. You would have to be a lawyer and know the specifics of the case to say for sure what applies in this case. Sjö (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Photograph
Is there any reason for there to be a photograph of David Cunliffe in this article, when it does not include a photograph of the offender? Cunliffe's involvement appears to be no more than to have been the target of a "gotcha" by his political opponents. I realise the actual criminal's name and photograph cannot be included, but in that case the article really should not include photographs of bystanders. Biographies_of_living_persons states Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. which could well be interpreted to include this use of Cunliffe's photograph. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, the photo of Cunliffe is inappropriate. Photos of Rodney Hide or Maggie Barry would also not be appropriate (unless perhaps if Barry were to act on Hide's request...)- gadfium 07:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Queenstown suppressed indecency case. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160303221050/http://www.scene.co.nz/wakatipu-man-set-for-trial-in-dunedin/299463a1.page to http://www.scene.co.nz/wakatipu-man-set-for-trial-in-dunedin/299463a1.page

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)